cybermgk Posted May 31, 2018 at 04:48 PM Share Posted May 31, 2018 at 04:48 PM I don't know that you could call this a 'registration' scheme on it's face, though it certainly behaves like one in practice. Essentially, the state will be mirroring federal record keeping requirements for firearm sales. I think the only difference here is that there is an electronic data-base (all sales must be recorded electronically) and person to person sales now require a 4473 copy that never existed because no FFL makes a copy of the 4473 you sign, unless you request it - which 100% of people don't do because it's a waste of time. So now this BS is going to become law, FFL's will make an extra copy and buyers will have to keep that copy. The problem with all of this will eventually be the enforcement aspect, and the horrible nightmare of keeping records current. We've seen how awesome the state is with FOID/CCL schemes, this will just be another revenue-stream and the purpose/intent will fall flat on its face. The end goal of this legislation was to end person to person sales, and it seems it will accomplish that given the amount of liability involved. Where are you getting the 4473 and FFL stuff? I am extrapolating based on how I read this BS and thinking about what constitutes a 'record'. Most gun dealers do not give you anything for a 'record' except a receipt of purchase, and that's it. If you have an 03 C&R, you'd be familiar with just how far 'record keeping' can go in terminology - it can be anything from a receipt or invoice, all the way to the 4473 form itself. In either case, this just means less people will sell their guns privately and just have an FFL dispose of their firearms. After I posted, I thought that might be the case. But, I think they might just end up using an FFL to complete a private sale, thus not being a person to person, thus not falling under the new law (assuming it doesn't get vetoed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted May 31, 2018 at 08:39 PM Share Posted May 31, 2018 at 08:39 PM If I was a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I'd say they tried to come up with something worse than universal background checks. I'm more inclined to go along with the suggestion they just don't know what they're doing. Throw some crap on paper, vote for it, tell their constituents they were tough on gun violence, let somebody else fix what's broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybermgk Posted May 31, 2018 at 08:41 PM Share Posted May 31, 2018 at 08:41 PM If I was a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I'd say they tried to come up with something worse than universal background checks. I'm more inclined to go along with the suggestion they just don't know what they're doing. Throw some crap on paper, vote for it, tell their constituents they were tough on gun violence, let somebody else fix what's broken.If I didn't suspect 'others' were writing the bills for them, I'd definitely say incompetence. And by others, I mean certain national groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchet Posted May 31, 2018 at 08:58 PM Share Posted May 31, 2018 at 08:58 PM If I was a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I'd say they tried to come up with something worse than universal background checks. I'm more inclined to go along with the suggestion they just don't know what they're doing. Throw some crap on paper, vote for it, tell their constituents they were tough on gun violence, let somebody else fix what's broken.Typical method of theirs. They create a bill so bad and over reaching and horrifying then introduce a milder one after everyone has flipped their lids. Then they push the lesser one which is so bad, that we would have been opposed to if it came straight out with it, but they claim they are being reasonable "look what we could have gone with, this is a compromise" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted May 31, 2018 at 10:01 PM Share Posted May 31, 2018 at 10:01 PM If I was a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I'd say they tried to come up with something worse than universal background checks. I'm more inclined to go along with the suggestion they just don't know what they're doing. Throw some crap on paper, vote for it, tell their constituents they were tough on gun violence, let somebody else fix what's broken.If I didn't suspect 'others' were writing the bills for them, I'd definitely say incompetence. And by others, I mean certain national groups. Lobbyists write laws for both sides. Legislators rarely do at any level. A legislator's job is essentially to wear a hairdo and get votes. For an anti-2A legislator to know nothing about firearms isn't surprising. They've spent their entire lives avoiding knowing anything about firearms. Obtaining an elected position doesn't automatically make them an expert, however much they may like to pretend they are to their constituents. What I find more surprising is that anti-2A lobbyists, who are paid to be subject matter experts on firearm-specific issues, don't know much, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.